It isn’t really worth discussing the legal merits because the lawsuit won’t matter, but this isn’t about voters’ rights. Clinton is pretending it is, but there is no legal sense in which anyone is being disenfranchised here. No one has a right to vote in a primary, nor do they have a right to expect their vote to be counted. The DNC will muddy these waters by cutting the delegations in half in some way, but there is no legal argument to be made here.

That’s Dean’s problem, which you apparently don’t get. He’s lost control. The DNC no longer has the last word on this subject, unless Obama can get a MI and FL proof majority. There’s little reason to believe that’s actually going to happen any time soon.

In the event that he does achieve the 2210 number, I do fully expect MI and FL to be seated fully (why not–Obama can be magnanimous in victory and will help party unity). Which was the point to my original rebuttal to Mark’s comments. The “half a loaf” argument is pointless. It ain’t gonna happen that way.

The options are:
Obama secures the number I keep mentioning, 2210, in which case MI and FL will most likely be seated fully.
Obama does not secure the number I keep mentioning, 2210, in which case the lawsuit(s) move forward until fully resolved, and a very possible outcome is that 2210 will be the number.

Regardless, it’s not 2026, and it’s not “half of FL/MI” either.

I’m not trying to create big battles. I’m just pointing out the realities of the numbers. And the reality is that until a court says otherwise, you’ve got to be thinking about 2210 if you’re Obama.

Now, your legal analysis may be correct. However, this is typically an area where our so-called “activist judges” step to the front. The legal argument is thin, I admit, but judges tend to rule on the side of the plaintiff in voter’s rights cases.

Tend to..I admit it’s not solid. Hence the argument in my second post. FL doesn’t have to prove anything, just keep the case going long enough to force Dean’s hand. Right now the game is five card stud, and FL is showing the King, Queen, Jack, and Ten of Spades. What’s their hole card? Is it the Ace of Spades? Or something useless like the Two of Clubs? Dean’s pretty sure it’s not the Ace (or even the Nine) of Spades, but how much is he willing to bet on that? The White House? His legacy as DNC Chair? The future of the party? In the end, if the situation isn’t resolved come August, Dean folds. He has no choice.

(actually, in retrospect it’s more appropriate to say that they’re showing the King and Queen, and the passage of June and July without a resolution will allow them to flip the Jack and Ten)

GCB: Well, perhaps they can. But it’s my guess here that the VRA can’t possibly apply to the nominating contests for a private entity. The Democratic Party isn’t required by anything other than its own rules to even hold primaries. And, even if they were, the Florida and Michigan situations are different in some pretty key ways.

As long as Obama is short the 133 he needs, FL and MI still can make the argument I just said. The obvious and simple answer is to get Obama over that threshold by getting uncommitted supers to commit to him. Then Dean can happily seat FL and MI in full and not worry. The chances of that happening soon are slim.

With FL and MI included, Obama is currently 133 short.

There is very little chance of him picking those numbers up by June 3 (the date of the last primary).

If he doesn’t have the numbers on the morning of June 4, it’s unlikely he will have them by the time of the convention either. If you’re a superdelegate, and you haven’t committed by now, what possible incentive do you have to commit before the convention? Answer: None.

GCB: I’m, uh, pretty sure the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t protect states against federal action. In fact, it pretty explicitly only protects individuals against state actions.

Imagine this conversation:

FL Dems: Are you planning on naming a nominee at the convention?

Howard Dean: Of course, that’s what the convention is for.

FL Dems: With this suit still going on?

Howard Dean: It doesn’t matter that the suit is still going on. You’re going to lose, and you know it.

FL Dems: Are you sure of that?

Howard Dean: Of course I’m sure. You have no shot.

FL Dems: Sure enough to bet on not being forced to change the nominee after the convention is over? That would be pretty embarrassing for the party, don’t you think?

Howard Dean: You and I both know that’s not going to happen.

FL Dems: Can you afford to take that chance?

The point here is that FL and MI have the power to wreck the party, if they chose to do so. Howard Dean can’t afford to let that happen. In the end, he’s going to have to give FL and MI pretty much whatever they ask for. He might be able to wiggle some sort of minor compromise, but in the end, this is going to go in favor of FL and MI and not in favor of the DNC. Incidentally, it’s also not going to go in favor of Obama.

Now, I read an article that says that no matter what happens with FL and MI, it’s not going to give Hillary enough delegates to claim the nomination. That is absolutely true. That is no longer her goal, though. She doesn’t have to have enough to claim the nomination. She just needs to make it so Obama can’t claim it either.

And thanks for the compliment on the name of the blog.

As I see it, Florida Democrats have to prove three things. First, they have to prove that the VRA applies to the Democratic Party, a private organization. Second, they have to prove that the DNC was required to seek pre-clearance from the Justice Dept. Third, they have to prove that the DNC didn’t seek pre-clearance to strip the delegates.

If I were the defense lawyer for the DNC, I would first try to argue that the VRA doesn’t apply in a private election [which is what a primary is], only to governments. They would have to show that they never had to report to the Justice Dept. before, why should they have to now? Second, if they did have to do the pre-clearance thing, they would argue that the penalties and procedures were set forth in their rules (which presumably would have been pre-cleared), and they shouldn’t have to seek permission of DoJ to enforce the rules.

I don’t hold out much hope; but then, I have no idea if the DNC was required to seek pre-clearance. If they were, then I’d say Florida has a shot at getting seated. The point of all that was to say that Florida’s suit under the VRA doesn’t help Michigan at all.

Or maybe it does, just indirectly… Michigan Democrats could raise an Equal Protection challenge if Florida succeeds, saying that “Florida did the exact same thing we did, but they’re not getting punished for it and we are. We aren’t getting the same treatment that Florida is getting.” If a primary gets covered by the VRA, it would definitely get covered by Equal Protection. That’s even more tenuous though, and I think, unlikely to succeed.